Post on Mormon Feminist housewives upsets "male allies"

[_son of Ishmael]

I disagree about the hair splitting. Asking a question communicates interest in hearing what others have to say. You can translate it as: This is new to me. I'm interested enough in hearing what you are saying to ask a question. That's just as much a comment as: "It's a trap!"

OK hair splitting aside, I will give you that. I guess what I meant was providing any sort of opinion. Chase did a good job though

[_Stormy Waters]

Sorry, Stormy, if my comment generated your response. I did not understand your comment as an endorsement of the upset and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I didn't think you had, but it made me realize it could be interperted that way.

[_Sethbag]

I wish them luck with that. They have some legitimate beefs, but the tone of the OP is incredibly off-putting. Sounds like they've got crap they want to do, and don't particular welcome any guys around while they're doing it. Ok. Knock yourselves out.

[_angsty]

For an actual feminist ally, there is nothing upsetting in that post.

I think there's some serious truth in this.

I'm a straight ally, and if one of my gay friends composed an analogous post about how to be, or how not to be, an effective LGBT ally, I'd ask myself if I was guilty and if the answer was "yes", I'd make some changes, and if the answer was "no", I wouldn't make it about me, because as the post would emphasize, "It's not about [me]".

That's the point, after all. As a heterosexual, I am willing to acknowledge that I might not completely get it. In virtue of my heterosexual privilege, I don't expect to see the problems clearly and I certainly don't have all the solutions. I might very well be more a part of hetero-normative culture than I realize. Clearly there's a legitimate need for intellectual and emotional humility here. But, because I am truly committed to the cause of equality, I am not put off by an opportunity to re-examine my part. Nor am I put off by the realization that I am, in large part, a follower in this cause and I sure as hell wouldn't hide behind objections about "tone".

That some men who identify as feminists might be bothered by the post is not surprising. It is a clear indication of the depth of the problem and an opportunity to understand it more deeply.

[_Sethbag]

Angsty, it's the idea that, in the interest of gender equality, I would need (assuming I was attempting to move into the circles in question as an ally) to sit down, shut up, and know my place. The irony meter is literally off the charts.

Tone is only half of it. Sure, the tone was bitchy, but that's not that big a deal. The content is the real culprit here.

[_angsty]

Angsty, it's the idea that, in the interest of gender equality, I would need (assuming I was attempting to move into the circles in question as an ally) to sit down, shut up, and know my place. The irony meter is literally off the charts.

Tone is only half of it. Sure, the tone was bitchy, but that's not that big a deal. The content is the real culprit here.

Do you have a specific objection to anything she said?

[_Res Ipsa]

I think there's some serious truth in this.

I'm a straight ally, and if one of my gay friends composed an analogous post about how to be, or how not to be, an effective LGBT ally, I'd ask myself if I was guilty and if the answer was "yes", I'd make some changes, and if the answer was "no", I wouldn't make it about me, because as the post would emphasize, "It's not about [me]".

That's the point, after all. As a heterosexual, I am willing to acknowledge that I might not completely get it. In virtue of my heterosexual privilege, I don't expect to see the problems clearly and I certainly don't have all the solutions. I might very well be more a part of hetero-normative culture than I realize. Clearly there's a legitimate need for intellectual and emotional humility here. But, because I am truly committed to the cause of equality, I am not put off by an opportunity to re-examine my part. Nor am I put off by the realization that I am, in large part, a follower in this cause and I sure as hell wouldn't hide behind objections about "tone".

That some men who identify as feminists might be bothered by the post is not surprising. It is a clear indication of the depth of the problem and an opportunity to understand it more deeply.

I think it's interesting to compare the two situations. If you were sitting around with several of your gay friends and they started talking about the discrimination they'd faced, would you jump into the conversation and try to turn it to what a rough time you'd had as a straight person. My guess is no. But if you step back and take a look at feminist discussion forums, you see this happening all the time -- anytime a woman discusses a negative experience she had with men, men jump into the conversation and try to change the topic to something having to do with men. They derail the conversation into "men have it tough, too" or they deny her experience or they tell her how she should feel or behave. The point is, they often don't listen. I moderate a forum and I see it all the time. When I read a feminism forum, I see it even more.

It's not hard to be a good ally. But the most important step is to ask: "how can I be a good ally?" Instead, what most men who describe themselves as feminists do is decide themselves what feminism should be and how feminists should behave, and then lecture the women on how they should think, feel, and behave -- including the "tone" they should use when they post. When guys talk tough, it's guys talking tough. When women talk tough, they need to change their tone.

[_Res Ipsa]

Angsty, it's the idea that, in the interest of gender equality, I would need (assuming I was attempting to move into the circles in question as an ally) to sit down, shut up, and know my place. The irony meter is literally off the charts.

Tone is only half of it. Sure, the tone was bitchy, but that's not that big a deal. The content is the real culprit here.

I think you miss the point, Seth. If you want to be a good ally, ask how to do that, listen to the answer, and give women the credit to know what they need.

[_Sethbag]

Angsty, it's the idea that, in the interest of gender equality, I would need (assuming I was attempting to move into the circles in question as an ally) to sit down, shut up, and know my place. The irony meter is literally off the charts.

Tone is only half of it. Sure, the tone was bitchy, but that's not that big a deal. The content is the real culprit here.

Do you have a specific objection to anything she said?

Read what I said in my previous post. I'm not going to write up an enumerated list of every word she wrote that comes across to me as "sit down, shut up, and know your place". If you don't agree with me that's fine. I probably couldn't convince you if I tried, so I won't.

[_Sethbag]

Angsty, it's the idea that, in the interest of gender equality, I would need (assuming I was attempting to move into the circles in question as an ally) to sit down, shut up, and know my place. The irony meter is literally off the charts.

Tone is only half of it. Sure, the tone was bitchy, but that's not that big a deal. The content is the real culprit here.

I think you miss the point, Seth. If you want to be a good ally, ask how to do that, listen to the answer, and give women the credit to know what they need.

Why does being an ally of feminists require me to give them what they tell me they need? Could a person legitimately be an ally merely by opposing gender inequality? Could a male be an "ally" of the feminists on his own terms? If not, why not? Why does the author of the OP require that a man subordinate himself to literally every single woman feminist in order to be a legitimate ally? Does gender inequality justify gender inequality?

But again I ask, what if a man simply opposed gender inequality? Is he legitimately an ally of feminists? Or is his own self-subordination to all women feminists also required?